[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Changed in: firefox Importance: Unknown = Critical -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Sorry to kick this obsoleted discussion. Unfortunatly I have to admit that I too, have quit using Ubuntu. To be specific: Xubuntu. I am not the only one who quit using an Ubuntu distro. My wife who's a dedicated KDE user quit Kubuntu for the reason Canonical chose KDE4 in stead of offering the choice to use KDE3 or KDE4. Xubuntu (tried Jaunty on a customer's pc) has a great look and feel, the way installing it, using it is fantastic, but the feeling to agree with an EULA of Firefox, the knowledge my machine would become unstable after a distro upgrade made me decide me to go back to Debian, including my advices to others. I use a stable Lenny release with the advantages of the Squeeze release, thinking back on the time using Kubuntu / Xubuntu wich worked perfectly on the most recent machines (also in professional ways) but doing a distro upgrade had a 50% chance of succeeding while its origin Debian succeeds on 95% of the installs. When Canonical would change its policy in periods of distributing (*)Ubuntu letting the older installs being compatible with their first oncoming releases I (and a lot of my customers) would be some of the many to be returning to (*)Ubuntu. Canonical is doing a great job, but the product has to be workable over a longer time than it is today. I'd like to see the (*)Ubuntu distro's being upgraded as freely as other distro's do, slowly and stable changing to the next without loss of data and/or stability. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
To Laurens V. You do not need to accept any Eula in Ubuntu, you can use abrowser as the same way you use iceweasel on Debian. You do not need to upgrade your system each six months, you can use LTS versions only, which is almost equal to use Debian stable. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
released ** Changed in: ubufox Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Changed in: firefox Status: New = Invalid -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Changed in: firefox Bugwatch: Mozilla Bugzilla #439604 = Mozilla Bugzilla #439858 Status: Invalid = Unknown -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Changed in: firefox Status: Unknown = Fix Released -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Lol you said anal This email was sent from a Palm Centro -Original Message- From: blackest_knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP Date: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:44 am Size: 1K To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] version 3.03 of firefox is repeatedly showing me this eula, which isn't really an eula, I don't care about it appearing the first time but its starting to really get on my nerves since its showing me this repeatedly! What kind of idiot decided this was needed, surely the about item on the help menu is enough, if necessary add a button to allow the user to read the whole thing if they want. Firefox is googles customer, not me. Larry Page and Sergey Brin.pay for firefox, I don't. It's all a bit Anal-Retentive this Eula thing any way, so stop doing it! Google wants as many people using FireFox as possible but this showing the freaking eula every time firefox starts is annoying the hell out of me, not only that its embarrassing, I don't want to be grouped in with a bunch of anal retentitive losers because thats what it looks like, every time you fling that Eula in users faces, its not big its not clever and someone should have known better. Firefox needs an update sharpish or another browser is getting installed! -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. --- message truncated --- -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
The Frankenphishing Service. Mark Shuttleworth wrote: pj wrote: Since Mark is asking for input on the service, I will tell you that the first thing I do is turn off antiphishing services, along with every other thing that tends to track my surfing. I turn off Javascript and cookies too, for example, so I'm definitely not the average person in my habits. I turn stuff on as needed, clean up, and turn it off again. In the community of folks who are very aware of the sort of abuse that goes on, being conservative about JS and cookies isn't unusual. Those are definite attack vectors on one's online identity and privacy. Out of curiosity, would you prefer that cookies and javascript be disabled in the default case for Ubuntu, too? If the argument is that anti-phishing might be used to track your surfing, like cookies and JS, and therefor it should be turned off, would it not also be consistent to want JS and cookies disabled by default? We certainly take the view that we (Ubuntu) are entrusted with our users security, so this would be worth exploring. My gut feel would be though that most people would say I'll turn that off for myself where I'm concerned, but I understand that the default should for JS to be switched on. The bug is in the way the antiphishing services works... The old implementation was a choice between checking with google for each site you visited and downloading a blacklist that did its checking without calling home to google. I had no problem with the second approach but then things changed and you now get the Frankenphishing service which does the download the blacklist file and check thing BUT if it gets a hit it then does a phone home to google to double check in realtime. I would say that the downloading of the blacklist and local anti- phishing checking with no phone home should be the default. No privacy concerns with this. The problem is the phoning home to check thing. So this whole problem with the anti-phishing services is just bad implementation. 1. The default should be that a file is downloaded every day\hour and this is used to check for bad sites. No phone home or anything. 2. On first hit of a phishing site, ask for user to accept Terms an Conditions of the service. 3. Also ask if user wants to start checking with google in realtime or not (point out the privacy issues). -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Its been an interesting discussion, thanks for all those involved. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Ante Karamatić wrote: rant mode Yet again, Debian doesn't allow me to create a t-shirt with 'Debian Official' logo on it. On the other hand, Debian developers do have that right. /rant mode Note how silly a scenario you had to create in order to make your point. According to Debian's own logo policy[1], use of their Official Use logo is pretty strictly controlled, but their Open Use logo is under a BSD-like license (no warranty, no endorsement implied). Guess which one is exclusively used in the actual Debian distribution? That's right, the Open Use logo. Debian is nothing if not consistent (sometimes to the extreme), and they do not put anything in their software that you are not allowed to use under the same terms they themselves follow. In fact, I have not seen the Official Use logo used *anywhere* in many years, making the Open Use logo the de facto logo of the Debian project, so complaints about their trademark policy are misguided.. Back on topic, thanks to Mark and everybody from Mozilla to coming to as reasonable a solution on this issue as you could. :) [1] http://www.debian.org/logos/ -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
I think two things need to be added. First: All this should be easy to find under Help - About. Second: As I understand it, when the service is turned on, Firefox contacts Google once every half hour (or some such) to update the blacklist. This should be mentioned. By contacting Google, the browser informs Google about our browsing-time habits. This lets Google add some more details to its already vast repository of statistics on our habits, interests and other privacy- sensitive data. Some people feel that it’s risky for our civil liberties that such huge amounts of private information gets concentrated at one entity. Because of this, such things must always be told very openly. People have a right to know about these things and decide for themselves. It may be unimportant when it's only used for serving ads, but important for someone who feels politically persecuted. That's for each person to decide. The information on Firefox doing this must be very openly available. The text should mention whether the only identifying information in these contacts is the user's IP address, or whether there's a more uniquely identifying cookie or some such. In fact I wish that instead Firefox contacted Canonical or Mozilla to update the blacklist, and Canonical or Mozilla got the list from Google. Privacy information should be spread out among many different entities, not concentrated at one entity. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Another piece of information that needs to clear, in accepting the current push of FireFox, will it reset the flags that are turned off, forcing you to agree to something you have already not agreed to? This whole problem has been handled backwards. First forcing EULA, to get a hidden by default license in front of user who does not realize they were pre-agreed to service by default. What a good way to open. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Remco wrote: Trademark is, like copyright and patents, an intellectual property, designed to restrict other people. It's not in the spirit of free software to be bound by any of these. Remco, the GPL specifically constrains what you can do with code, using copyright law. It's easy to confuse do whatever you want with the carefully constructed, and enforced, freedoms in free software, but they really are different things. Free software is not a carte blanche to use other people's work however you want. The same is true for the Firefox code. If we use the nameless version and build our own brand, we use free software. If we use Firefox®, we aren't using free software, since the license of the branded binary is non-free. No, the license is NOT non-free. The GPLv3 explicitly mentions trademarks and says that it is reasonable to ask people to use a different name for the results of their modifications while still protecting the essential freedoms of Free Software. Mozilla Firefox is absolutely free... except for the trademark. You are completely free to change the code, but you're not allowed to change stuff if Mozilla doesn't want you to. To keep Mozilla happy, you have to compromise by allowing this friendly notice, and whatever Mozilla may want in the future. Basically, Mozilla is an additional terms wildcard. No, if we want to use the Firefox brand, then we must work with Mozilla, and that's reasonable. If we don't want to use the brand, they have kindly given us lots of rights to the code they have so lovingly produced. I don't like this any more than anyone. I want to use Firefox, but I also want to use software that is not restricted by outsiders. The Firefox code and Firefox® are two different products with two different licenses. The one is free, but undesirable. The other is bound by Mozilla's wishes, but a strong brand. It's a lose lose situation. Except if Mozilla relinquishes the Firefox trademark, which is unlikely. I feel differently about this. I'm enormously grateful for the work Mozilla does in giving free software platforms like Linux and Ubuntu a world-class browser. I'm grateful that we can get access to the very powerful and meaningful brand - Firefox - and confident that we can work with Mozilla to make the terms of that access reasonable. To me, it's important to find a way to respect the wishes of the people that actually build free software applications. That's not always possible, and in those cases we want to be gracious about our differences. How about you? Are you appreciative of Mozilla's work? Do you think it's reasonable to want to work with them, where we can? Do you contribute a lot to Mozilla? Do you think it's right to ignore the major contributor of a big body of work, and even berate them for wanting to create a strong brand? Do you think the things they are actually asking for here, now that we've been through this process of engagement with them, are unreasonable? Or are you simply objecting to the idea that you might have to work WITH someone instead of just doing what you want? Sometimes, I think in the free software world we have attitudes that are ultimately harmful to our own cause, because we think we have rights to things that we don't really. If we do nothing but berate Mozilla, we will run the risk of ending up with no ongoing investment in their Linux work. Why should they bother, if all they get is ungrateful abuse? Linux is a very small part of their overall user base, remember. Mark -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Remco wrote: Why do you think Ubuntu is not called Ubuntu Linux? The trademark has been removed from the name. No, that has nothing to do with it. Our packages use linux in the name. If Linus wanted (or the Linux Foundation, I think) then they could ask us to change them, or stop using the name. We call the distribution Ubuntu and not Ubuntu Linux because the things we care most about are sufficiently well described by that one word. Mark -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
pj wrote: Firefox also *offers optional* web site information services, such as blah blah Instead of: Firefox also *uses* web site information services Looks like an improvement to me, I'll pass on the suggestion to Mozilla folks who may not be watching this thread. On grannie, though, I think you may want to think from a different standpoint. I acknowledge your amazing skill and energy at mobilizing and spreading acceptance of GNU/Linux on the desktop. And part of that skill is your ability to figure out what makes it accessible to grannie too. So it's natural you think about her and what she needs. I surely don't want to undermine those special abilities you've demonstrated. I admire them. The only caution I feel is this: the first goal is to provide a free and open source system. After that comes usability, ease of use, convenience, protection of users, etc. Yes, I agree. It's that feeling of being part of something profoundly different, and liberating, that makes us tick. And the make users life easier theme is a very slippery slope, that can be used to justify the whole shebang - Skype, Flash, you name it. Walking the fine line between selling out and actively furthering the cause of free software through some pragmatism is possibly the toughest thing we do, and I don't think we can claim to be supernaturally insightful or good at it, we have to question both our current and sometimes our past positions, regularly. The fundamentalist live free or die approach sounds much easier, though the problem there is that it's hard to agree on the precise definition of fundamentally free - look at the disagreements between the DFSG and the FSF on that front. We have Debian and gNewSense and a few others, all of whom define themselves as being quite fundamentalist and all of whom have different definitions! So we could adopt a position of absolutism on this in an attempt to make our lives easier, and then still find ourselves in tough debates with other folks that have equally absolute views, just slightly different ones :-) Mark -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
2008/9/24 Mark Shuttleworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, if we want to use the Firefox brand, then we must work with Mozilla, and that's reasonable. If we don't want to use the brand, they have kindly given us lots of rights to the code they have so lovingly produced. I do more and more agree with you Mark. A company has the right to preserve its image (aka brand, logo, ...). I just wonder why Debian created Iceweasel then? I know Debian are real zealots about the free software, but I also trust them on this subject. So I'm a bit confuse here... Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that they did few Debian-specific modifications. But as long as they modified Firefox, they can't reuse the name. If I'm right until then, why don't they send their modifications to Mozilla? Mozilla refused? Imagine you have an Ubuntu-specific feature to add to Firefox. Mozilla doesn't want it for some reason... What's your choice? Abandon your modification or change the name? I'm not trying to make a point here, I'm just trying to understand a bit better all the consequences :) -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Creak wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that they did few Debian-specific modifications. But as long as they modified Firefox, they can't reuse the name. If I'm right until then, why don't they send their modifications to Mozilla? Mozilla refused? I wasn't part of that decision, so I'm only repeating what I heard, which is that Debian simply preferred not to be obliged to discuss their changes with Mozilla. I don't think there was any specific change which Debian wanted and Mozilla felt was problematic, it was more that the idea of having to maintain an ongoing relationship was not attractive to the specific developers involved at Debian. And that's a perfectly reasonable position, too. Imagine you have an Ubuntu-specific feature to add to Firefox. Mozilla doesn't want it for some reason... What's your choice? Abandon your modification or change the name? Yes, pretty much. But so far we've always managed to agree. We always have the right and the ability to switch to the abrowser package which we've created, but we prefer to engage as long as possible, we benefit from the Firefox brand and I hope Mozilla benefits from the exposure we bring. Mark -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
I must admit that I had not given much thought to naming and trademarks in free software earlier. I'm wondering if the situation with Firefox is any different from other big names which are trademarked, like KDE, GNOME, Linux, or OpenOffice. I have not heard similar controversies about them in the context of Ubuntu or Debian or any other distribution. The presence of the anti-phishing service is one difference, but is that it? Is there a reason why Firefox gets talked about more? Is there any distribution which has unbranded versions of the above mentioned products, to gain the flexibility of modifying them? This has been said earlier, but I'd like to reiterate how awesome it is that anyone is welcome to take part in a discussion in which Mark himself is participating. :-) -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
To Mark, all, Well, I have been making too much a point of this. The reason for that is that the replies I got did not show they understood my main problem with the situation. No, I don't misunderstand trademark; trademark does impose limits on the Firefox® product -- and Firefox® is a different product from Iceweasel/Icecat/abrowser or the code. (I use the ®-character to distinguish between the two products if necessary.) I am perfectly OK with using whatever variation of Firefox myself, and I do think Mozilla makes a beautiful browser. I do think Mozilla is a Good Thing in the scheme of things, but I'm not so happy with the consequences of their trademark. I'm not against trademarks as a whole, but it has its problems. And the reason I'd like to see Firefox® in restricted, is only because the branded product is more restricted than free software. It's a matter of sound classification, knowing what you get, so the user can choose his degree of freedom orthodoxity (is that even a word?). For full disclosure: * I did suggest earlier in this thread that we could switch to Epiphany. This was before the EULA had disappeared. This was mostly fueled by technical reasons. It integrates better by design. * I also suggested that it's quite OK for services (free or non-free) to be available in Firefox. Freedom is a choice of the user as far as I'm concerned. And at some point free software has to interface with a non-free world. * I'm not a developer of free software. I'm just a user, bug reporter and a computer science student planning on making a lot of free software in the future. * Recovering from minor surgery, I might not have had the best mood ever. Sorry about that. ;-) As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. Well, fixed. Remco PS. as long as we're admitting fandoms... big fan of y'all, Mark, pj, and the whole community! :) The fact that the hierarchy of communication is completely flat makes it very exciting to be here! -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Mark Shuttleworth wrote: I wasn't part of that decision, so I'm only repeating what I heard, which is that Debian simply preferred not to be obliged to discuss their changes with Mozilla. I don't think there was any specific change which Debian wanted and Mozilla felt was problematic, it was more that the idea of having to maintain an ongoing relationship was not attractive to the specific developers involved at Debian. And that's a perfectly reasonable position, too. That's not accurate. There were at least two sticking points where what Mozilla insisted upon simply conflicted with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. It was not that Debian simply preferred not to work with Mozilla on an ongoing basis. The two major problems were: 1) The Firefox (etc) logos have a copyright license that is not DFSG-free, so Debian would not be able to use those without a change in those licenses;[1] and 2) while Mozilla was willing to make a Debian-specific exemption that entitled Debian to make modifications to the code and still call the products Firefox/Thunderbird/etc., Debian-specific licenses also violate DFSG #8, because Debian has to be able to pass down to its users all the rights that it has.[2] Debian cannot allow special exemptions that apply only to Debian or this would leave its users in the lurch with less freedom than Debian itself has. One would think that Ubuntu, the organization that arguably benefits from this Debian policy more than anyone else, would at least be cognizant of it. Brian [1] See, e.g., http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/identity-guidelines/firefox.html [2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:19:24 - Brian C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debian cannot allow special exemptions that apply only to Debian or this would leave its users in the lurch with less freedom than Debian itself has. rant mode Yet again, Debian doesn't allow me to create a t-shirt with 'Debian Official' logo on it. On the other hand, Debian developers do have that right. /rant mode -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
To understand a bit more about the anti phishing in firefox you should read about the documentation, http://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/wiki/Protocolv2Spec , or other pages about the code. Now know that the service is not perfect, let me explain, what i mean for the part i understand what it does: Firefox anti service is turned on , the website you visit is compared with a blacklist that resides somewhere on google or partners servers, it has been known to go wrong, see : http://www.finjan.com/Pressrelease.aspx?PressLan=1230id=1261lan=3 Or blocks sites that are no treat at all see : http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/21/1827209from=rss Yes its a powerfull censure tool , its also a way to make money, surf behavior statistics and phishing sites, do we have any influence on the service and what is censured? There seems to be an ( dead? ) project for open source anti phishing services : http://opdb.berlios.de/ and http://www.antiphishing.org/events/2006_researchSummit.html There might be more, but i could not find them. Are they safe? I would trust google more at the moment. The service is running on their servers, so need not to be open source, the information sent comes from ours, the sending part of code also runs on ours, as you can study in the code above. Maybe some more views on the code is wise? I think its good to know, the ups and downs, since the discussion is coming to its conclusion, the more we understand of what we are choosing the better it is to explain the choice. Hope to be of service, friendly greetings from the netherland. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed. Mark If this was so, you could have removed the EULA yourself to begin with, and much of this discussion would not have occurred. Remco put it well: The mere fact that Mozilla has any say in this makes Firefox non-free. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
pj wrote: Since Mark is asking for input on the service, I will tell you that the first thing I do is turn off antiphishing services, along with every other thing that tends to track my surfing. I turn off Javascript and cookies too, for example, so I'm definitely not the average person in my habits. I turn stuff on as needed, clean up, and turn it off again. In the community of folks who are very aware of the sort of abuse that goes on, being conservative about JS and cookies isn't unusual. Those are definite attack vectors on one's online identity and privacy. Out of curiosity, would you prefer that cookies and javascript be disabled in the default case for Ubuntu, too? If the argument is that anti-phishing might be used to track your surfing, like cookies and JS, and therefor it should be turned off, would it not also be consistent to want JS and cookies disabled by default? We certainly take the view that we (Ubuntu) are entrusted with our users security, so this would be worth exploring. My gut feel would be though that most people would say I'll turn that off for myself where I'm concerned, but I understand that the default should for JS to be switched on. A second question would be: how would one know when to turn on the anti-phishing service? With JS and cookies it's relatively straightforward. One surfs along without them, and then something doesn't work, and you decide I think this site looks trustworthy, and I really want to complete this thing I started, I'll enable JS and cookies. But, how would you decide to enable the anti-phishing service? And isn't the anti-phishing service very useful in helping to decide whether or not to enable JS and cookies? I certainly wouldn't want cookies on at a site that was red-flagged in the anti-phishing service. So I don't think one can assume that there are no people who will find the antiphishing service objectionable. Fair enough :-). I think this is what makes our discussion interesting - we have to be aware of the extremes of abuse or attack, and we also have to be aware of what most people want. And in the case of Ubuntu, it's not even that, it's what most people like us want, where people like us means people alive to these issues and interested in finding pragmatic and usable expression for that awareness. I personally would prefer that it be turned off by default and allow folks to turn it on if they want it. There seems no reason to treat people like children, needing our protection whether they want it or not. How much pain would that cause Mozilla, compared to the pain caused to those of us who really care about Main being clean? I don't think that people turning off the anti-phishing service causes Mozilla pain. I don't have any reason to think that's anything other than an expense for Google or Mozilla. I think though, that the general feeling is that having it there and on makes for a better, safer browsing experience, and the idea is that Firefox stands for the best browsing experience and is also, amazingly, all free software. So, I imagine that to the Mozilla folks (and I'm *not* conveying anything that's been said to me by them, just trying to put myself in their shoes) they would want to make sure that anyone who ships something called Mozilla Firefox delivers a consistent, predictable experience in this regard. Say you installed FF on your Mom's computer, she gets some nasty phishing mail, clicks on the link, FF says this is a scam, and she falls in love with Mozilla on the spot and tells all her friends That Firefox is the right way to web. Then one of her friends installs Ubuntu (OK, a stretch, or the sort of granny *I* want to have) and is delighted to see Firefox there. But when her friend gets the same scam email, she gets phished, because we turned this off by default. I can see how that would be bad for Mozilla and for Firefox (and frankly for Ubuntu too). This is not treating people like children, it's taking a view on the most appropriate configuration for folks when they start out. I can see how reasonable people might take different views, but I don't think it's unreasonable for us to take the view that this is the right default configuration. The software is modifiable, but after you say I agree, then is it? Under the same license? I was sick last week, so I haven't had a chance to seriously review the language on the services part, so this is just to make clear that while I definitely see the major issue, the EULA, resolved, I haven't said the same about the services agreement to date. I would be very interested in the results of your analysis, and there are also other folks looking carefully at the legalese to make sure there are no conflicts with the MPL, GPL and other specific licenses involved. If anything comes up it will have to be addressed, or we'll have to drop FF from main. So far, nothing has.
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Prateek Karandikar wrote: All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed. Mark If this was so, you could have removed the EULA yourself to begin with, and much of this discussion would not have occurred. Remco put it well: The mere fact that Mozilla has any say in this makes Firefox non-free. Prateek, we have been over this several times now. We could ABSOLUTELY have removed the EULA, and then we would have had to call the browser something like Iceweasel or abrowser. And in fact, if you look in Intrepid, there are packages of that there just in case we or you want to do that. However, since we would prefer (and our users would prefer) Firefox, we do need to work with Mozilla. That's perfectly reasonable. And the results of that engagement have been positive: the EULA is gone, and I think we are converging on a reasonable approach modulo final legal analysis as PJ described. Engagement is always our first approach, and only if that fails should we ostracise an upstream. Upstream is our rock, right? They do the rocket science that makes free software possible, we should respect and engage positively with them to the very greatest extent possible. I hope you consider Debian free software, but you cannot just take Etch, change a few things to suit you, and then call the result Debian. Same for Ubuntu, or Gentoo, or ... any branded, trademarked service. That is not a restriction on your ability to modify the code, it's a restriction on your ability to pretend that the result is someone else's work. Mark -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
The way this discussion has developed and the obvious participation of major figures in the OS community is another solid reason for me to appreciate open source software. Whilst not directly related to the EULA, if the version of Firefox to be included in Ubuntu in the future will incorporate something similar to the proposed screenshots, would it be possible to include a few words about how the anti-phishing services work? With regard to comment #513: My understanding is that Firefox downloads a list of suspected attack/forgery sites and locally checks urls against this list. The list is then maintained but no user data is sent to a remote server. This is different (I believe) to the way Google Toolbar works in respect of the page rank information, where all visited URLS are checked remotely. Would it be possible to reassure users that no personal browsing data is retrieved and possibly stored by Mozilla and Google? -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Just to throw in my metaphorical towel. Chip Bennet, who I have found myself agreeing with from the beginning and who has a much better way with words than me, has apparently actually gone and read the agreement that is the final piece of this puzzle. In comment 508: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656/comments/508 he basically concludes that the new wording of the terms do not appear to require any concrete action; in fact the action is now non- compulsory: ... I see no reason for the services not to be enabled by default - with respect to matters of software freedom. (I still contend that the matter of the *usefulness* of those services is not germane to the issues at hand and under discussion in this bug report.) Having just read the terms myself here (http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836931/about_rights_expanded.png), I concur with Chip completely. The language is plain (even I can understand it) and does not appear to impose any restrictions on my usage. In reality, it simply explains to me that the service might not be 100% effective. I'd love to see PJ's analysis but it looks fine by me. +1 to continue including Firefox in main. This has been a very exhilarating experience. A large cohort of community members have been able to have their say and it would seem that the majority have been very clearly heard. A most excellent outcome seems imminent for all involved. PS - The image of the terms has a major typo however: *Items 4 and 5 are the same*. Please can we see the official terms - if they are done yet - before closing this? -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Attachment added: Screenshot: release-candidate firstrun (rev3) http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17877769/firstrun.png -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Attachment added: Screenshot: release-candidate about:rights (default) (rev3) http://launchpadlibrarian.net/1784/about_rights.png -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Attachment added: Screenshot: release-candidate about:rights (expanded) (rev3) http://launchpadlibrarian.net/1786/about_rights_expanded.png -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
I am pleased to say that we reached a state where I feel comfortable to call this bug fix committed. Thanks to all for contributing, testing and providing feedback. The screenshots i just posted reflect the current state as of rev 337 on the firefox-3.0.head branch, which is most likely what will get uploaded to intrepid quite soon. Thanks again, - Alexander ** Changed in: firefox-3.0 (Ubuntu Intrepid) Status: In Progress = Fix Committed -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Trademark is, like copyright and patents, an intellectual property, designed to restrict other people. It's not in the spirit of free software to be bound by any of these. Patent problems are hard to avoid in general, which is why they should be abolished. Copyright has been tamed by free software and trademark should be used carefully, if at all. If you want your work to be redistributed as free software under its original name, trademark presents a problem. By the way, these restrictions actually encourage cloning. Had there been no copyright on UNIX, there would have been no 10 different versions of it, including GNU. Had there been no patents on MPEG, there would have been no Theora. Had there been no trademark on Firefox®, there would have been no Iceweasel, Icecat or abrowser. Notice how Slackware and Mozilla have identical trademark protection. You can't change a bit in Slackware's source and call it Slackware. This, of course, has nothing to do with software, which is free and you can do whatever you want with it. Trademark isn't software. Note also that other distributions (even if they were based on Slackware) are not called Slackware. And therefore, they use the free nameless version of the combined software. If they would be called Slackware, they would be non-free (they would be misleading and confusing as well). The same is true for the Firefox code. If we use the nameless version and build our own brand, we use free software. If we use Firefox®, we aren't using free software, since the license of the branded binary is non-free. There is a difference between distributions and application software. Trademark usually doesn't conflict with distributions, since each distribution wants its own name and identity. If a distribution's name falls under the trademark of another distribution, it would be non-free, but it would also be a bug. However, Firefox® must be included in a distribution. This means the distribution will always fall under the trademark of Mozilla. This can only be solved by removing the trademarked parts. Think back to the games: Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is absolutely free except for the artwork. You are completely free to change the code, but there is this blob of stuff that you can't change. Now, the following is a very small part of the problem, but still I mention it because the analogy is perfect: Mozilla Firefox is absolutely free, except for the artwork. You can't modify the logos. But besides the logos, there is this other restriction: Mozilla Firefox is absolutely free... except for the trademark. You are completely free to change the code, but you're not allowed to change stuff if Mozilla doesn't want you to. To keep Mozilla happy, you have to compromise by allowing this friendly notice, and whatever Mozilla may want in the future. Basically, Mozilla is an additional terms wildcard. I don't like this any more than anyone. I want to use Firefox, but I also want to use software that is not restricted by outsiders. The Firefox code and Firefox® are two different products with two different licenses. The one is free, but undesirable. The other is bound by Mozilla's wishes, but a strong brand. It's a lose lose situation. Except if Mozilla relinquishes the Firefox trademark, which is unlikely. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:46:03 - Remco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trademark is, like copyright and patents, an intellectual property, designed to restrict other people. No, you don't understand trademarks. Trademarks are designed to watch out for your property, where 'you' can be whatever you want; community, open source software, a person... Let me put it this way. If you write a poem and put your signature on it, and make sure that everybody can see it and even base their work on it, copy it and share it, would you accept that each derivation of that poem is yours? If you put your signature on 'Roses are red' and someone else modifies it into (lets be as bad as we can) 'Nazis are good', would you be ok with your signature under that poem? I wouldn't. GPL it self says that if you modify a software, you should add at least add notice that this is not original software: 'If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.' Now, if there wouldn't be trademarks on software, what would stop you from calling Epiphany based on WebKit - a Firefox? Or, Windows Vista - latest Slackware? By the way, these restrictions actually encourage cloning. Had there been no copyright on UNIX, there would have been no 10 different versions of it, including GNU. Had there been no trademarks and no source of UNIX, we would still have tons of different UNIX like operating systems. What's even worse, they all might have exactly the same name, but the application X wouldn't run on them all, even tough they are all SuperUNIX. This doesn't look like sane environment to me. How about you? You see how trademarks and open source don't have anything in common? They are unrelated. The same is true for the Firefox code. If we use the nameless version and build our own brand, we use free software. If we use Firefox®, we aren't using free software, since the license of the branded binary is non-free. There is no license on Firefox binary. There's license on Firefox source code and there is a Firefox trademark. However, Firefox® must be included in a distribution. This means the distribution will always fall under the trademark of Mozilla. This can only be solved by removing the trademarked parts. If we would start removing trademarks from Ubuntu, we would have to remove... Almost all software in it, including linux kernel. Cause, Linux is a trademark. Bottom line, we wouldn't have operating system. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
No, you don't understand trademarks. Trademarks are designed to watch out for your property, where 'you' can be whatever you want; community, open source software, a person... Yes, I do understand trademarks. The same thing is said for copyright, patents, and even technical restriction management: it protects property. But it does by severely restricting freedom. Let me put it this way. If you write a poem and put your signature on it, and make sure that everybody can see it and even base their work on it, copy it and share it, would you accept that each derivation of that poem is yours? If you put your signature on 'Roses are red' and someone else modifies it into (lets be as bad as we can) 'Nazis are good', would you be ok with your signature under that poem? I wouldn't. That's not trademark infringement, but libel or slander. GPL it self says that if you modify a software, you should add at least add notice that this is not original software: 'If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.' That's perfectly fine. If there were no trademarks, Ubuntu's version of Firefox could be shipped with an about window that says there were some modifications for integration and security. Now, if there wouldn't be trademarks on software, what would stop you from calling Epiphany based on WebKit - a Firefox? Or, Windows Vista - latest Slackware? If it was done with the purpose of defamation, then it could be prosecuted. Otherwise, there is no problem, because you don't do such things. These are extreme cases which don't happen in reality. Had there been no trademarks and no source of UNIX, we would still have tons of different UNIX like operating systems. What's even worse, they all might have exactly the same name, but the application X wouldn't run on them all, even tough they are all SuperUNIX. This doesn't look like sane environment to me. How about you? Take a look around. There are tons of Linux distributions. Most of the names are not covered by trademarks. Still, there are as many names as there are distributions. Insane? You see how trademarks and open source don't have anything in common? They are unrelated. Nope, I don't see it. Trademark still restricts free software. If we would start removing trademarks from Ubuntu, we would have to remove... Almost all software in it, including linux kernel. Cause, Linux is a trademark. Bottom line, we wouldn't have operating system. Why do you think Ubuntu is not called Ubuntu Linux? The trademark has been removed from the name. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Hi Mark, all, I had time to read over the services wording, and I can't find serious fault with it, but IANAL. I'm sure you are asking one, so here's my only suggested change: Firefox also *offers optional* web site information services, such as blah blah Instead of: Firefox also *uses* web site information services http://launchpadlibrarian.net/1786/about_rights_expanded.png The reason for the suggested change is so people are aware that Firefox works perfectly well without the service, so they won't be afraid to turn it off if they don't want that kind of protection. If it were me, I'd explain what a web site information service is. It's an antiphishing service, no? Why not say so? I'm not clear why they use the plural services instead of service throughout. If there are several, what else is there? Or if there is only the one, are they preparing for future services? I hope not, since you don't want people to say I agree to unknown things. 6 worries me a bit, from Mozilla's standpoint. If they update, will they get an I agree at that time? I hope so. Trademarks: For the record, I would be very happy if every project understood the purpose of trademark law better. The purpose is to protect the public, so you don't buy a Brand X pretend Gucci bag instead of the real thing and get ripped off. That's the purpose. It prevents litigation against the wrong party, and it prevents unjust damage to reputations. And it's the law, whether you make it work for you or not. You don't have to register a trademark to have one, and you can lose one if you don't act to protect it. After that, your name is in the winds, usable by anyone. Why wouldn't you make the law work for you instead of against you? A really large project has to, I think, because others will try to rip off the reputation of any successful project. It is what it is. Whether the actual requirements here to protect the marks are needed or not as set forth, I can't say, because it would require a lawyer, not just me, and more knowledge of the specifics than I have. But to take affirmative steps to protect your project is just good sense, in my view, and I not only understand Mozilla's worries, I support in that generalized sense their desire to protect themselves. The law compels them. And, of course I'm a huge fan of yours too, Mark. Really. Seriously. On grannie, though, I think you may want to think from a different standpoint. I acknowledge your amazing skill and energy at mobilizing and spreading acceptance of GNU/Linux on the desktop. And part of that skill is your ability to figure out what makes it accessible to grannie too. So it's natural you think about her and what she needs. I surely don't want to undermine those special abilities you've demonstrated. I admire them. The only caution I feel is this: the first goal is to provide a free and open source system. After that comes usability, ease of use, convenience, protection of users, etc. Why? I think it's because that's why we are all here, working without a dime, in many cases, just because we see the value of a computer that we can trust. I know when I sit down at a computer, and I have more than one operating system, I feel very differently when I'm in Mandriva or Kubuntu than I do on my Mac. The Mac is simple and easy and it just works, and I enjoy that. But I always know when I use it that I'm not altogether in control. I can't turn off Bonjour, at least not in a way Apple will tell me about, or Spotlight, etc. So I'm never actually alone. When you don't know for sure what a computer is doing that you don't know about, it feels very different. When I'm in Kubuntu, in contrast, I can breathe, because I know I can make it do what I want. I can change it, I can look at it, I can choose to configure it any way I choose. Why that matters, that kind of privacy, goes to the heart of what it means to be a human being. Privacy is necessary for people to really be themselves. You don't do certain things when people are watching you. Janna Malamud Smith wrote about that in her book, Private Matters: In Defense of the Personal Life. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy99/lesson1/malamud/mal_index.html She writes about what happens to people when it's absent. Solitude, which is one state of privacy, is so precious, some of those who were in prison camps in WWII mentioned how they craved it and how much they missed it. Solitude and a feeling of not being watched or tracked is precious to me, and I feel it only in FOSS. Anything that subtracts from that wonderful experience is a move in the wrong direction. Up to a point, some compromises can be worked through, but there is a tipping point beyond which all the volunteers disappear, and when you think about it, they are what FOSS is. And they won't be chumps, and they are interested only in a system that they trust. Market share is not what the community is after first and foremost. So
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
This bug was fixed in the package firefox-3.0 - 3.0.2+build6+nobinonly- 0ubuntu1 --- firefox-3.0 (3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1) intrepid; urgency=low Security/Stability update (v3.0.2 build6) - see USN-645-1 [ Fabien Tassin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] * Add a -g/--debug switch to the launcher script to start firefox inside gdb. Note that it must be specified first on the command line. - update debian/firefox.sh.in * Make the branding patch also work for non official branding. - update debian/patches/browser_branding.patch [ Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] * Fix branding code in debian/rules: a) fix .desktop target filename to be unversioned if and only if control ships a meta package name - update debian/rules * Don't cp debian/$(DESKTOP) debian/$(DEBIAN_APP_NAME).desktop in pre-build:: which is a left over from previous branding split approaches and unused now. - update debian/rules * Use APPNAME=`basename $0` in firefox start script; fix bug that would trick abrowser into restarting itself through the firefox command. - debian/firefox.sh.in * Fix LP: #269656 - AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP; we implement the Know Your Rights... approach based on the mocked-up's published by mozilla http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/17/mock-ups-available-for-notices-previously-was-eula/ - add debian/patches/lp269656_know_your_rights.patch - update debian/patches/series * abrowser Provides: firefox to ease transition of rdepends - update debian/control -- Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:44:47 +0200 ** Changed in: firefox-3.0 (Ubuntu Intrepid) Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released ** Changed in: ubufox (Ubuntu Intrepid) Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
This bug was fixed in the package ubufox - 0.6~b1-0ubuntu3 --- ubufox (0.6~b1-0ubuntu3) intrepid; urgency=low (cherry-pick rev 112 from lp:ubufox) * fix LP: #269656 - AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP; we backout the infamous firstrun feature (reverse apply rev 103) - update content/overlay.js - update defaults/preferences/ubufox.js - remove content/mozeula.html * fix LP: #272772: packages that Depend/Recommend/Suggest firefox (meta-package) must alternatively Depend/Recommend/Suggest abrowser - update debian/control (cherry-pick rev 113 from lp:ubufox) * set all translations for startup.homepage_override_url and startup.homepage_welcome_url to about:blank; this prevents firstrun and milestone pages to appear - update locale/*/ubufox.properties (cherry-pick rev 114 from lp:ubufox) * HOMEPAGE_ONLINE now points to ubuntu 8.10 release startpage - update content/startpage.html (cherry-pick rev 115 from lp:ubufox) * dont make alternate plugin binding break flashblock; our bindings are not \!important anymore - update content/alternatePluginsBinding.css -- Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:48:53 +0200 -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
To label trademarks in the same bucket as copyright is a strawman argument that's a very slippery slope. Instead of restricting users, trademarks protect users from abuse by providing a consistent user experience associated with a brand. It has been lucky that the free software projects without trademarks have not had a major upset by failing to comprehend the importance of names and brands and how that could be abused by people with malicious intent. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Chip Bennett wrote: Maybe Canonical has an agreement with Mozilla to get a part of the Google money to have these services enabled, or maybe they just see it from a marketing point of view and want the brand recognition that firefox carries, for example to maintain their deal with Dell who might prefer something with Firefox since they have the choice between so many distros. Personally, I choose to assume that Mark Shuttleworth/Canonical have no ulterior motives with respect to the anti-phishing/malware services enabled by default in Ubuntu, and that Mark Shuttleworth's view represents a philosophical difference of opinion with respect to whether or not shipping Firefox with those services enabled by default results in Firefox no longer conforming to the requirements for free software. We do have agreements in place with Mozilla, and they are in the process of being updated, but as far as I'm aware there's no commercial dimension to the anti-phishing service at all. The question about what sorts of terms of service would be incompatible with the spirit of free software is a very interesting one, and I know there's lots of good debate and discussion going on within our community and within Canonical. Theres nothing like a consensus on the matter (don't confuse the AGPL for terms of service for services). At this stage, my own compass suggests that we are OK if: - the terms appear to be basically reasonable - the terms don't prevent you from working with anyone else - the terms don't prevent you from studying the service itself For basically reasonable I ask myself will most *aware* people want this on? By aware I mean people who are sensitive to issues of licensing and data protection and their rights. Most people are oblivious to those things, but the group of people cc'd on this bug are probably aware. And I'm pretty sure that the substantial majority of folks cc'd on the bug have left the anti-phishing service active. I certainly have. I would think it nuts to surf the web without it. The middle one is, I think, important because we don't want to see lock-in. One could go further and look for data portability and protection, but I don't yet see any consensus about that. And the last one is important people it's analogous to one of the fundamental benefits of the four freedoms, the ability to learn from the software one is using. I think it likely someone tries to wedge a service in somewhere that says you can't study this (the way BitKeeper did) and I think that would be non-free. I'm sure, as the discussion evolves, we'll get a better framework, and I'm not speaking for the whole CC here, just myself. There are serious members of the community who are extremely aware of these issues who have been part of the process in driving to a resolution, and as far as I'm aware we are all comfortable with this latest round of proposals. There is still some detailed due-diligence under way on the specific language used and compatibility with each of the licenses in play, and if problems turn up there, we'll work with Mozilla to get them addressed. Our interest here is in getting to a positive outcome, which for me means helping Mozilla as well as helping our users. There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the anti-phishing service on, and leave Firefox in main. I don't believe we are abusing the trust our users place in us, and in fact, most of the other courses of actions would feel like abandoning that trust in favour of making an unnecessary statement. Mark -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
William Grant wrote: I question the wording of the notification bar at the top; the point it is trying to make is not that it's open, but that there are things which aren't. Software shouldn't present a button describing restrictions, with text next to it emphasising that it's open, not mentioning the non- freeness at all. There's a discussion going on across the whole community of Mozilla and Firefox users, to try and reach final wording. At this stage, the wording we have represents the latest iteration of that discussion. We drove the structure of the solution (the info panel, followed by the statement of rights and terms of service) but the exact wording needs to be agreed across the whole community. Mark -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Mark Shuttleworth wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the anti-phishing service on, and leave Firefox in main. Do you believe that it is acceptable to have application software in main that you are not free to modify and distribute? Doesn't this contradict the Ubuntu main Component license Policy( http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing )? All application software included in the Ubuntu main component: *Must include source code. The main component has a strict and non-negotiable requirement that application software included in it must come with full source code. *Must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under the same license. Just having the source code does not convey the same freedom as having the right to change it. Without the ability to modify software, the Ubuntu community cannot support software, fix bugs, translate it, or improve it. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
A new intrepid build is available in my preview/testing archive: - https://edge.launchpad.net/~asac/+archive - firefox-3.0 - 3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~asac2 This upload addresses some technical details and comes with updated wording for the notification displayed on firstrun as well as for the about:rights page. I think it addresses a few of the comments made above, e.g.: + first run page now reads open _source_ software (vs. just open software) + main title for about:rights page reads now ABOUT: YOUR RIGHTS (vs. Free Software and Mozilla Services) + title for the web service terms reads now: MOZILLA FIREFOX WEB SITE SERVICES (vs. Mozilla Firefox Website Service Agreement). Will attach new screenshots too. Please test. Thanks, - Alexander -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Attachment added: Screenshot: proposed firstrun (rev2) http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836902/firstrun2.png -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Attachment added: Screenshot: proposed about:rights (default) (rev2) http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836924/about_rights.png -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Attachment added: Screenshot: proposed about:rights (expanded) (rev2) http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836931/about_rights_expanded.png -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Prateek Karandikar wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the anti-phishing service on, and leave Firefox in main. Do you believe that it is acceptable to have application software in main that you are not free to modify and distribute? Doesn't this contradict the Ubuntu main Component license Policy( http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing )? All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed. Mark -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** Attachment added: Screenshot: proposed about:rights (expanded) (rev2) http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17836931/about_rights_expanded.png A nit - do we really need ALL CAPS? Even Mr. Shuttleworth doesn't seem to be too fond of them :-) And a Thank You! to all involved in providing solutions to this bug - The obvious issues have been addressed, and the less obvious issues discussed thoughtfully. We freetards may be a loud and obnoxious bunch from time to time, but proof positive the process works in spite (because of?) it when everybody buys in. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Since Mark is asking for input on the service, I will tell you that the first thing I do is turn off antiphishing services, along with every other thing that tends to track my surfing. I turn off Javascript and cookies too, for example, so I'm definitely not the average person in my habits. I turn stuff on as needed, clean up, and turn it off again. So I don't think one can assume that there are no people who will find the antiphishing service objectionable. I personally would prefer that it be turned off by default and allow folks to turn it on if they want it. There seems no reason to treat people like children, needing our protection whether they want it or not. How much pain would that cause Mozilla, compared to the pain caused to those of us who really care about Main being clean? The software is modifiable, but after you say I agree, then is it? Under the same license? I was sick last week, so I haven't had a chance to seriously review the language on the services part, so this is just to make clear that while I definitely see the major issue, the EULA, resolved, I haven't said the same about the services agreement to date. My question is this, and please excuse a stupid question, but I'm not a programmer, so I don't know, and to analyze the language, I need to understand this point: is the antiphishing part strictly services, or is there not software involved too? If the latter, surely that software is not freely redistributable and modifiable, is it? If it isn't, then where are we if it is on by default? -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Sorry PJ, but I can't agree with you. What's the point of having super-duper antiphishing features in web browsers if they were turned off by default? Why users should be bothered to turn them on? Those who don't want such antiphishing services are a minority. So they can have a little more hassle to turn off the features they don't need. Imagine if car producers would do as you suggest - latest cars with ABS, ESP, and other safety features would have them turned off by default. Would that improve their security? I don't think so. These antiphishing filters are being made with a good will. Their primary function is to protect users. If you don't believe in it then you can check the source code and see if that is true or not. You can always opt-out from them so you always have a choice. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed. Mark This hasn't been true for a long time. The version of Firefox that is shipped can not be modified freely. If we don't get permission from Mozilla to ship a revised binary, we can't. This has to do with the artwork and name, both of which are not released under a free license. The same is true for many games. The Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory game engine is free software, but the artwork is not. The Quake III code is free software, but the artwork is not. And this goes for many other games too. And in a very practical literal sense: can we remove this new Know your rights information bar if we want to? After all, it's just informational, right? It's not a EULA anymore. I guess Mozilla doesn't allow that. The mere fact that Mozilla has any say in this makes Firefox non-free. Those games will never end up in main, and neither should Firefox. If the non-free parts of Firefox are essential to Ubuntu, the package should be moved to restricted and the licensing page should be modified: All of the application software installed by default is Free Software. In addition, we install some hardware drivers that are available only in binary format, but such packages are clearly marked in the restricted component. The first word All should be replaced with Most and added should be something along the lines of: In addition, we install some application software that has a strong brand, which is a higher priority than absolute software freedom. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Firefox cannot be distributed in a modified form. The whole point of the branding from Mozzila's point of view was that there should not be 100's of modified Firefox's floating about If it can not be modified and distributed by *definition* it can not be in main... Otherwise you are saying we can take Iceweasle and put FF branding on it? C On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 16:11 +, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: Prateek Karandikar wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that the right thing to do is leave the anti-phishing service on, and leave Firefox in main. Do you believe that it is acceptable to have application software in main that you are not free to modify and distribute? Doesn't this contradict the Ubuntu main Component license Policy( http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing )? All of the software in question can be freely modified and distributed. Mark -- Disclaimer: By sending an email to ANY of my addresses you are agreeing that: 1. I am by definition, the intended recipient 2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and make such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends itself to. In particular, I may quote it where I please. 3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company. 4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may be included on your message. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:20:18 - Remco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This hasn't been true for a long time. The version of Firefox that is shipped can not be modified freely. If we don't get permission from Mozilla to ship a revised binary, we can't. This has to do with the artwork and name, both of which are not released under a free license. Debian, Linux, RedHat, Ubuntu... All trademarks. You can't use them freely - as no one can use your name for something you didn't do. If you own a website with 'linux' in the domain name, and if you use it as a trademark, you need a sublicense from LMI - the name 'Linux' isn't free. Check this out (http://www.slackware.com/trademark/trademark.php): In order to be called Slackware, the distribution may not be altered from the way it appears on the central FTP site (ftp.slackware.com). This is to protect the integrity, reliability, and reputation of the Slackware distribution. and this (http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/): The Gentoo Foundation is the legal owner of the Gentoo trademark and logo. To protect Gentoo it will oversee the use of the Gentoo name and logo and take appropriate action when the Gentoo Foundation feels that the name or logo is wrongfully used. Are Slackware and Gentoo non-free then? Even Debian has a trademark policy which is clearly non-free, as you can't do whatever you want with 'Debian'. Notice how Slackware and Mozilla have identical trademark protection. You can't change a bit in Slackware's source and call it Slackware. This, of course, has nothing to do with software, which is free and you can do whatever you want with it. Trademark isn't software. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
unsubscribe -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Trademarks are similar to filenames in a filesystem, right? We can't have two files with the same name in the same folder... But we could have that file in another folder - it means that in another country we could register Firefox if you would like. But, anyways, you are not going to register anything, right? So, solution is simple... We can call Firefox whatever we want, not asking anyone for permission... Whether it is Iceweasel or Firefox or whatever - no matter. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Gavin: thanks. this is now address in bzr rev329. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Gavin: thanks. this is now addressed in bzr rev329. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
I question the wording of the notification bar at the top; the point it is trying to make is not that it's open, but that there are things which aren't. Agreed. The point is not about the free/open-ness. Pidgin, OpenOffice, and many other installed-by-default things are free, they don't need any such thing. The way I see it, everything here boils down to the anti- phishing/anti-malware services, which require the user's agreement to use them. The purpose is to draw the user's attention to this. The EULA issue might have been solved, but a bigger question remains: we are still bound by Mozilla's wishes. The EULA could be replaced by the bar on top only because Mozilla agreed to it. Isn't this (everything requiring a stamp of approval from Mozilla) against the spirit of free software? Canonical is treating Firefox as non-free software, by refusing to ship anything that Mozilla does not approve of. This is by Canonical's choice: it could have shipped binaries compiled from the GPLed code available from Mozilla. Why does Mozilla get special treatment? Will Canonical never ship, say, a patched Pidgin which the Pidgin developers don't like? Also, another issue is the implicit agreement thing. Suppose a user ignores the know your rights button. After all, [s]he uses free software all the time, and doesn't need a special reminded from Mozilla, [s]he thinks. The user continues to use Firefox normally. Is the user considered to have agreed to the terms of use of the web services? Mozilla, what do you say? If the answer is no, then users can legally use the web services without agreeing to your/Google's terms, so you might as well do away with them. If the answer is yes, ... well, there's surely something wrong in believing that users have agreed to an agreement which they haven't even seen. IANAL, but I doubt if a court will be of the view that the user has agreed to the terms. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
unsubscribe -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
kafpauzo said: People tend to interpret the defaults as a very strong recommendation. When people are uncertain about the consequences of touching a setting, many will see the default as a recommendation that you should disobey only if you have a really compelling reason, and only if you have thought through all the consequences with great care. As a consequence, the people who need this service will generally be afraid to touch the setting, and will only very rarely turn it on. Meanwhile those who don't need the service can turn it off very easily, for them it's quite trivial. This can be handled, as I said before, with a screen when you first run firefox saying something like For safer browsing and anti-phishing protection, it is STRONGLY recommended that you enable these google services. Accepting them means you agree to the terms of use (link) with a button underneath saying enable anti-phishing services now. This way, the user doesn't have to go through menus and options, and it will be clear that the recommended and default setting is having those services enabled. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
+1 to Dragonlord's comment #466 I have yet to be convinced that it is the right thing to do to include Firefox in *main* with these services enabled as default. In this state, FF is *not* Free software; you are required to accept a usage policy irrespective of how conspicuous or not that agreement happens to be. Firefox/Mozilla are clearly trying to do the right thing - Canonical should do the same. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
kafpauzo The GPL does allow trademark restrictions. You'd need to find software that is published under a license that forbids trademark restrictions. A licence can only declare rules (it can't forbid or restrict anything, except the authors of the licence). A licence can restrict only the author of the licence. Many software companies are abide by the satements of their licences. They can't restrict you from copying and modifying, but they are abide by their words: they will fulfill unfulfillable rules, either eternally pursuing pirates or breaking their rules by not pursuing pirates. Ironically, in the Middle Ages you could buy an indulgence, and now you can buy rights and say all rights reserved, when no rights are really reserved. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Let's imagine we're *not* talking about Google and Mozilla. I definitely won't trust an Open Source software that is offered to me with a pre-accepted EULA. The reason is simple: it's only about trust. W'e ve seen, more than once, companies that suddenly made their patented technology into profit (GIF, JPG, MP3, ...). Thus as long as the company doesn't write clearly that it will keep its technology free as in freedom, we can consider it potentially closed. So, even if I trust Google and even more Mozilla, I still want to be reassured that what I'm using will not be suddenly shutdown or not free (as in beer). And the only way to do that is to have a compatible free software license [1]. Simple as that! That said, if the services are disabled by default but that the first Firefox page advices me to enable them. As far as I trust Ubuntu and that I know Canonical point of view about freedom, I'll do it! But this way I don't have the impression that someone is twisting my arm. [1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
In light of the recent comments, I'm starting to see the additional problems with having firefox as-is in main, especially with the web services enabled by default. Indeed, like Chip pointed out, Firefox with web services cannot be freely used without taking note of its use restrictions. I do accept Marks premise that web services are fundamentally of a different nature than applications, and therefore can not be treated the same. But the bottom line remains the same: with anti-phishing enabled by default, Ubuntu is shipping a piece of software in main that has use restrictions in a default install (quoting from the draft Web Services Agreement: [...] which are [...] made available subject to the terms below). That's tough to reconcile with Ubuntu's promise of using only open/free software. On the one hand, requiring the user to take positive action in order to *disable* a web service he does not agree to is the wrong approach, but on the other hand, the users most likely to fall prone to phishing are the ones that will probably never go to the preferences dialog to enable the feature. Finally, there is one other point I feel I should comment on: [...] there is no GPL for Services but we expect one to emerge over the next few years, and this work by Mozilla is an important first step. The GPL is not a use license: you can use the software without even being aware of the license. Like others have said, there is a GPL for services (Affero GPL) but at its core it's still a distribution license, not a use license, since it obliges the implementor of a service to convey the source of the service to its users. I do not agree that Mozilla is working on a GPL for services because what we're having is still an end-user license. In fact, it's not even Mozilla's. The agreement governs a web service provided (hosted) by Google. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Hi, Finally some test builds are available for intrepid in my test archive: https://edge.launchpad.net/~asac/+archive The package versions required are: firefox-3.0 - 3.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~asac1 xulrunner-1.9 - 1.9.0.2+build6+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~asac2 ubufox - 0.6~b1-0ubuntu3~asac1 /etc/apt/sources.list lines would be: deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/asac/ubuntu intrepid main universe deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/asac/ubuntu intrepid main universe Please test. Thanks, - Alexander -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Attachment added: Screenshot: proposed firstrun http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17779249/firstrun1.png -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Attachment added: Screenshot: proposed about:rights (default) http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17779270/about_rights.png -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Attachment added: Screenshot: proposed about:rights (expanded) http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17779313/about_rights_expanded.png -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
I think free and open-source software would make more sense, rather than just open software. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Nice workflow, unobtrusive, reassuring. Good stuff Alexander. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 13:15 +, aschuring wrote: In light of the recent comments, I'm starting to see the additional problems with having firefox as-is in main, especially with the web services enabled by default. Indeed, like Chip pointed out, Firefox with web services cannot be freely used without taking note of its use restrictions. I do accept Marks premise that web services are fundamentally of a different nature than applications, and therefore can not be treated the same. So I dived into Google, which is a shining example of: * A company that supports free software * A company that offers software as a service * A company that historically does not respect user privacy. If you install the Google toolbar, you get some agreeable features.. Then you get to the page rank display part which presents some privacy implications. If you turn on page rank display, you are greeted with a privacy statement that you have to accept. Most enable this to see page rank, as page rank is now famous. Perhaps when the anti-phishing service in Firefox becomes as popular, people will enable it without much question too. There are plenty of Windows/FF users who may or may not establish this service as a good idea in popular culture. Those users are rather used to such license agreements. I will be damned if I support Firefox using my free software as kindling to ignite the fame of their service so that everyone trusts it blindly. I will also be damned if I use or promote __any__ GNU distribution that back-doors such a thing. Ubuntu is GNU/Linux, yes? Mark, either get your head out of the toilet or stop complaining about how much it stinks. When you impose this kind of thing on the free software community that promoted your business (especially with no warning) .. this is what you get. At least 6 major appliances now ship with Ubuntu because of my recommendation. We (the FLOSS community) existed way before Ubuntu. So did you, which is why I'm shocked. The cost of doing business sometimes transacts negatively with your ego and your investments, get over it. Go ahead, term my launchpad account while questioning my conduct for simply defending free software, I really don't care anymore. What you have orchestrated attempts to exemplify an egregious betrayal of trust which others have pointed out and that you have (frankly) failed to address. On a friendly note, didn't you miss this kind of stuff? :) Friendly, --Tim -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
That seems to be a less invasive solution to me, making the default installation more usable, so thanks to those involved for the improvement. This still seems to be non-free though, so I still think firefox-3.0 or the branding package should be moved to restricted. The unbranded/abrowser/iceweasel option must be offered as the real free choice. While I think it's an acceptable trade-off not to have this installed by default in order to keep the firefox brand, it's obvious from this report that the unbranded option needs to be taken seriously. Once issues like bug #269795 have been solved, it's probably fair to call this whole situation fix released :-) -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Dont enable the anti-phishing by default, but educate about how it can be turned on. As others pointed out, the people who most need anti-phishing are the ones who are least likely to change the settings :-) -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 16:31 +, ua wrote: Tim Post wrote: So I dived into Google, which is ...u miss this kind of stuff? :) Friendly, --Tim I think you should stop. What you say isn't going to help free software. I respect Mark and I can't respect you. you seem so much ungrateful and respectless. I should respect someone with $millions more than me who has not written a line of (published) code in years? I think not, at least not for just what he's spent money trying to accomplish. Money means very little to me. However, thank you for your opinion and I will stop, I'm done arguing. Friendly, --Tim -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Am 20.09.2008 um 16:08 schrieb Alexander Sack: ** Attachment added: Screenshot: proposed firstrun http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17779249/firstrun1.png Looks reasonable, even if I still think Mozilla's insistence makes them look a bit silly. Do you have a hint on how to reset Firefox to new without losing all bookmarks? MarKus -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
You can use the command firefox -profilemanager to add a new profile. This will let you test the new first-run EULA if you missed it (or want to experience it again). This new version of the EULA appeared for me even though I had already viewed the previous version, so if you're paying attention the first time you shouldn't need to create a new profile. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
I hate to say this here, but Mark Shuttleworth is a businessman, a company leader, not exactly what I would call a free software leader. And that's fine! But we need to know what we're talking about. Even launchpad is not free software (yet), one wouldn't expect from a free software leader to release non-free software, wrong? Anyway, this is not about bashing mr. Shuttleworth, honestly, but we need to view things from a realistic perspective. If Ubuntu was not created with profit as one of the purposes, it would have been developed by a community, Debian-style, and not under the guidance, funding, and decisions of a company. Tim Post, I hear you, but you should know by now that companies are about profit. If you want to promote a distro that is and will remain faithful to the free software principles, use Debian or something else created and maintained only by a community. Maybe Canonical has an agreement with Mozilla to get a part of the Google money to have these services enabled, or maybe they just see it from a marketing point of view and want the brand recognition that firefox carries, for example to maintain their deal with Dell who might prefer something with Firefox since they have the choice between so many distros. Canonical is a company and that's what they do, go with the marketing rules, and that's understandable. If the community that supports, spreads Ubuntu and for the largest part makes it what it is likes that and lets it happen is another thing. For me, it's very fortunate and desirable for the free software community to have Canonical work with the laws of marketing to spread free software, as long as it doesn't compromise the principles of free software for this cause - because, you know, it becomes pointless since you can't support free software by contaminating it with non-free services that require a user agreement, at least on a default installation. It has become clear by now that the essence of this issue has not been fixed, since we're still talking about a user agreement required to use the software on its default configuration, it's now only hidden and considered that the user has agreed without stating it, only by not disabling the services. It's the same as bombing for peace, f***ing for virginity etc. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Saturday 20 September 2008 10:57:20 am JohnFlux wrote: Dont enable the anti-phishing by default, but educate about how it can be turned on. As others pointed out, the people who most need anti-phishing are the ones who are least likely to change the settings :-) I respect that position; however, the question of usefulness of the service is secondary to the question of whether having them enabled by default results in Firefox not conforming to the requirements of free software. If the issue of usefulness is deemed to be the primary issue, then Canonical will need to change the operating principles for Ubuntu, as well as the requirements for supported software in the Main repository. After all, I can present a rather strong argument for the usefulness of MP3 codecs, proprietary video card drivers, etc. - and yet the usefulness of none of those trumps the principles of free software Ubuntu promises nor the requirements for supported software in the Main repository. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Saturday 20 September 2008 12:18:12 pm Dragonlord wrote: Anyway, this is not about bashing mr. Shuttleworth, honestly, but we need to view things from a realistic perspective. Agreed; attacking Mark Shuttleworth over this issue is unnecessary and unproductive. Maybe Canonical has an agreement with Mozilla to get a part of the Google money to have these services enabled, or maybe they just see it from a marketing point of view and want the brand recognition that firefox carries, for example to maintain their deal with Dell who might prefer something with Firefox since they have the choice between so many distros. Personally, I choose to assume that Mark Shuttleworth/Canonical have no ulterior motives with respect to the anti-phishing/malware services enabled by default in Ubuntu, and that Mark Shuttleworth's view represents a philosophical difference of opinion with respect to whether or not shipping Firefox with those services enabled by default results in Firefox no longer conforming to the requirements for free software. Canonical is a company and that's what they do, go with the marketing rules, and that's understandable. If the community that supports, spreads Ubuntu and for the largest part makes it what it is likes that and lets it happen is another thing. For me, it's very fortunate and desirable for the free software community to have Canonical work with the laws of marketing to spread free software, as long as it doesn't compromise the principles of free software for this cause - because, you know, it becomes pointless since you can't support free software by contaminating it with non-free services that require a user agreement, at least on a default installation. I think that if Mr. Shuttleworth came to share our viewpoint on this issue, that Canonical would decide not to ship Firefox with the services enabled by default in Ubuntu. It has become clear by now that the essence of this issue has not been fixed, since we're still talking about a user agreement required to use the software on its default configuration, it's now only hidden and considered that the user has agreed without stating it, only by not disabling the services. And that issue is the only reason I'm still commenting in this bug report. I am really hoping to get an official answer from Shuttleworth/Canonical on this issue. As I have already said, I don't care about the usefulness/benefits of the anti-phishing/malware services until the question of whether or not having them enabled by default renders Firefox as non-free. Thus far, the most I have seen is that services are still an unknown entity in the free-software world and the services are too beneficial to disable. If that is the extent of Canonical's introspection on this issue, I do not believe it to be anywhere near sufficient. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
How is the integrated Google Search service any different from the integrated anti-phishing service? Both come with additional terms. Yet Google Search is not debated here, while the anti-phishing services are. Maybe if you could configure from which provider you would like to get the anti-phishing information, it would be OK. That's the case with the search bar too. There is nothing standing in the way of adding a search engine that is a free service. This is not yet possible with the anti- phishing service. The problem is that there are no free alternatives. And I'm not convinced that the current solution is non-free. Also, I don't think Canonical or Shuttleworth can just come up -on the spot- with a good definition of a free service and with a policy on them. That needs a lot of debate. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Saturday 20 September 2008 4:18:03 pm Remco wrote: How is the integrated Google Search service any different from the integrated anti-phishing service? Both come with additional terms. Yet Google Search is not debated here, while the anti-phishing services are. The significant difference between the two, as far as I can tell, istwo- fold: 1) The Google search service is enabled, but non-fuctional without explicit user interaction. The Mozilla services are enabled, and are active without any explicit user interaction. 2) The the Google search service does not require the user's explicit assent of the end user license agreement, while the Mozilla services do - in this case, explicit assent, in that the services are left enabled (the EULA instructs that if the user does not agree to the terms, then the services are to be disabled). The Google search service only implies assent if the user actually *uses* the service. If the user does not agree to the terms of use, he can simply not use the services. The Mozilla services *require* that the user disable the services if he does not agree to the terms of use. Maybe if you could configure from which provider you would like to get the anti-phishing information, it would be OK. That's the case with the search bar too. There is nothing standing in the way of adding a search engine that is a free service. This is not yet possible with the anti- phishing service. That is partly why I am suggesting that the Mozilla services should be disabled by default in Ubuntu. If Canonical wants to make a super-simple means of enabling those services (should the user choose to do so), and even strongly suggest that the user do so, I think that is perfectly acceptable behavior. The problem is that there are no free alternatives. And I'm not convinced that the current solution is non-free. Also, I don't think Canonical or Shuttleworth can just come up -on the spot- with a good definition of a free service and with a policy on them. That needs a lot of debate. Technically speaking, Canonical/Mark Shuttleworth *can* come up with policy on-the-fly. It's his company, and that is their right. That said, the community certainly doesn't have to *agree* with that policy - and it may not be in the company's best interest to do so. I very well could be wrong, but I'm not sure that, in the end, this issue will be one for which Canonical/Shuttleworth want to burn a lot of community good-will capital. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Alexander worote: * Screenshot: proposed about:rights (default) (75.4 KiB, image/png) IMHO, it is disrespectful to Ubuntu users to present an Agreement as Agreed by *default* ( as one can see in the mockup attached ). Solutions: i) don't call it Agreement ( suggestion: call it Important disclaimer ) ii) call it Agreement but require the user to *agree* the conditions to turn them on (*) (*) for example, the first time that you navigate certain pages, Firefox popups security messages with a don't show this the next time check box marked. In a similar way, after navigating a couple of pages, Firefox could popup the message: Firefox 3 provides a poerful antiphising service that can protect you from the bad guys , blah blah blah ... Do you wan't to enable it? If the user answer yes, then FF should display the [in]famous agreement that the user should *positevely* *agree*. And every one happy. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
asac, this looks much better! about:rights is perhaps a little bland, but it's a bit more readable! I question the wording of the notification bar at the top; the point it is trying to make is not that it's open, but that there are things which aren't. Software shouldn't present a button describing restrictions, with text next to it emphasising that it's open, not mentioning the non- freeness at all. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Alexander: the nsIAboutModule you implemented in http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox-3.0.head/revision/327 doesn't return ALLOW_SCRIPTS from its getURIFlags, so the link on the page it displays will be broken if the user has JavaScript disabled. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
It is certainly possible to have a free service. Look at the Affero General Public License. That deals with services. You could say that those are free services. Errr... ?! The licence clearly says: 'Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License,...' and '...and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program...' And, as any other license, it's about software, not a service. You can have GPL software on your computer, but your service, based on it, can be non-free. Output of AGPL-ed software (aka service) can be non-free - it's simple, AGPL doesn't cover services. And, at last, how much are Affero's terms of use different that those from Mozilla (except that are much, much bigger and difficult to read)? http://www.affero.com/ctos.html The problem is that free service is not very much defined. What makes something a free service? Apparently, the AGPL does. But is that the only free web services license? Are Terms of Service allowed in a free service? Free service doesn't have anything to do with free software. Those are two totally different things. TCP, IP, FTP, SSL - these are all open standards. These are not services but rather communication protocols. None of those services require that you either assent to their terms, or else disable them. There are no end user terms of use for these protocols (AFAIK). I wasn't talking about TCP. I said that TCP package you generate goes from your computer and uses services of your ISP (like routing, maybe NAT-ing, etc...) which are based on probably non-free hardware and non-free hardware's operating system. I don't see any difference between asking my ISP non-free router's operating system where should my data go and asking non-free Google/Mozilla if some website is 'phishing'. You can, as with FTP, implement this on any project/browser (http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/). IMHO, definition of free service is very much like open standard/protocol. If I can use some service and share data collected using that service, without restrictions, that's an open service. Having service served by open source software, but not having rights to share collected data is obviously non-free service. But even that can't always be true... Note: I'll not respond to any responses cause this bug report isn't the right place to have this type of conversation. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
I don't see any difference between asking my ISP non-free router's operating system where should my data go and asking non-free Google/Mozilla if some website is 'phishing'. The difference is that my ISP isn't pretending to be free. It can use free software as much as it wants to, but its services doesn't become instantly free. Thus the main difference is that I can use non-free softwares or services when I want and where I want, that's my freedom. But a software can't pretend to be free (as in freedom) if it has non-free parts in it that can't be removed by the user because eventually the user don't have the choice. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Also affects: ubufox (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
The following tasks are in progress to fix this bug in ubuntu: 1. firefox-3.0 - implement the Know Your Rights... approach which was presented here: http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/17/mock-ups- available-for-notices-previously-was-eula/ 2. ubufox - back-out the firstrun EULA Thanks, - Alexander ** Changed in: ubufox (Ubuntu Intrepid) Importance: Undecided = High Status: New = In Progress ** Changed in: firefox-3.0 (Ubuntu Intrepid) Status: Confirmed = In Progress ** Also affects: ubufox Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: ubufox Importance: Undecided = High Status: New = In Progress -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
ubufox part of this bug is now fix committed in bzr. Remember that firefox-3.0 task is _still_ in progress. If you want to track the progress, the Related Branches are linked below the bug summary. ** Changed in: ubufox (Ubuntu Intrepid) Status: In Progress = Fix Committed -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
** Changed in: ubufox Status: In Progress = Fix Committed -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Ante Karamatić wrote: And, as any other license, it's about software, not a service. You can have GPL software on your computer, but your service, based on it, can be non-free. Output of AGPL-ed software (aka service) can be non-free - it's simple, AGPL doesn't cover services. The AGPL does cover services. It guarantees that the software continues to be free if it is provided as a service. And, at last, how much are Affero's terms of use different that those from Mozilla (except that are much, much bigger and difficult to read)? http://www.affero.com/ctos.html I don't know, because I haven't read them. Apparently it is OK to have additional terms for the usage of a service governed by the AGPL. So, IF we regard an AGPL licensed service as free, then ToS are OK. And then it is also OK for them to be implicitly accepted by using the service. Free service doesn't have anything to do with free software. Those are two totally different things. How can you say that with such confidence? I see no widely accepted notion of a so-called free service. IMHO, definition of free service is very much like open standard/protocol. If I can use some service and share data collected using that service, without restrictions, that's an open service. Having service served by open source software, but not having rights to share collected data is obviously non-free service. But even that can't always be true... Note that you're now giving your own definition of free service. Clearly we need a widely agreed definition before we can even think about having a policy for it in Ubuntu. You focus on the data, but think about this: if all collected data of a service must be available to anyone, then there is no privacy anymore. Say a forum is free by that definition, then they must give all account information, all email addresses to anyone that asks. Nobody will want to use such a forum anymore. I think a focus should be more on the software, as the AGPL does. You want to be able to run the exact same kind of service, so the code that this service uses, should be available. That's what the AGPL guarantees. You still have to create your own infrastructure and start mining data, but that's the same with local free software. With free software on your own computer you can generate some valuable data, but you don't have to distribute that data if you want to distribute the free software. Remco -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 06:31 +, Ante Karamatić wrote: And, as any other license, it's about software, not a service. You can have GPL software on your computer, but your service, based on it, can be non-free. Output of AGPL-ed software (aka service) can be non-free - it's simple, AGPL doesn't cover services. AGPL3 does. There is a specific clause for software that interacts with users over a network. A good example of an AGPL3 program can be found at: http://sharesource.org Sharesource is like sourceforge, however Sharesource also releases all of the code that makes Sharesource. If you use this code to make your own Sharesource and change it, you are obligated to make your changes available to anyone using your service. There are various levels of 'teeth' to this, depending on how the author implements the license. For instance, a good implementation leverages the AGPL3 only when considering core code, not themes and icons. With interpreted languages, there is no linking beyond vm bytecode, and only its output is actually distributed .. so there is no combined work. This means you can make the core of your killer service AGPL3, while templates and other stuff can be any license compatible with the standard GPL (many OSI approved licenses are). However, if you make the core code depend on something new, your obligated to share that something. The purpose of the license is to help ensure cooperative development in the days of SAAS. AGPL3 specifically addresses this need. It helps to guarantee development in the open, however it should be used with thought and care. Writing a web server like Apache and releasing it under the AGPL3 is most decidedly not a good idea. Notice I said open, not user freedom, which is what I would normally say. Your freedom ends on the client, not server side of this situation. What remains is your privacy, or (if your the developer) assurance that you get code back. If you clone Google Apps, it might be a good license to pick. Another misconception about it is the license carrying over to data.. for instance stuff in a MySQL database. That is not the case. Structured queries used in the code apply, but not the data itself. Hope this helps. Cheers, --Tim -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
Some final after thoughts... I wonder if the topic is closed succesfully? The eula has changed into an webpage with the notice and is being worked on is what i know sofar, but still gives Ubuntu an moral issue, as to where firefox should go now, in nonfree repositories? Would it have been better for firefox to move anti-phishing non free software to the add-ons that you install on choice? Like the non free flash player, you can choose to install, the open source version being gnash. Maybe there will be an free solution for anti-phishing in the opensource field in the future...as SAAS. The non free anti-phishing software in firefox is an component of the mozilla and Google cooperation i thought, and, as i understand, information is sent to google and mozilla, for the blacklist etc... Mozilla and Google , being open source advocates, cant simply open source the lot? They would win my vote for that :) cheers! -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
@unimatrix9: Would it have been better for firefox to move anti- phishing non free software to the add-ons that you install on choice? The anti-phishing does not involve any restricted software inside Firefox. All of the restricted software is on Google's servers. The software inside Firefox is free. Firefox consults the service that is described at http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/ (or something similar). The code inside Firefox that does this is free software. The purists are worried that the software on Google's servers is restricted. The purists feel that because Google hasn't released their _server_ software, this makes Google's service non-free. They feel that Firefox becomes non-free just because it connects to servers that run non-free software. My opinion is that such a purist view is extreme and impractical. I don't want my free software to be restricted to contacting only servers that run free software. I think this would be a very severe restriction. I'm delighted that I'm invited and welcome to install huge lots of free- as-in-freedom software on my system, but I don't want to insist that every server that I contact do the same, nor do I feel that Firefox becomes any less free because of restrictions on Google's server software. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Friday 19 September 2008 2:46:38 pm kafpauzo wrote: The purists are worried that the software on Google's servers is restricted. The purists feel that because Google hasn't released their _server_ software, this makes Google's service non-free. They feel that Firefox becomes non-free just because it connects to servers that run non-free software. Hopefully I'm not being misconstrued as a purist. I do not believe that Firefox becomes non-free just because it connects to servers that run non-free software. My contention is that Firefox *may* become non-free because it has services enabled that require the end user either accept their use terms, or else disable those services. (The EULA for those services still resides within Firefox, albeit presented in a far superior manner than that which begat this bug report.) My opinion is that such a purist view is extreme and impractical. I don't want my free software to be restricted to contacting only servers that run free software. I think this would be a very severe restriction. Again, I've not seen anyone advocate restricting anyone from using those services; rather, only that those services be disabled by default in Ubuntu's Firefox package. Enabling those services is - at most - as simple as checking a configuration check box. I'm delighted that I'm invited and welcome to install huge lots of free- as-in-freedom software on my system, but I don't want to insist that every server that I contact do the same, nor do I feel that Firefox becomes any less free because of restrictions on Google's server software. I don't think anyone in this discussion has suggested what you seem to believe has been suggested. In the end, I'm just trying to get the conversation started with respect to what freedom means in the nascent software-as-a-service world in which we find ourselves. Firefox is just the first instance, but what happens here will set a precedent. I think it is wise to think through what precedent Ubuntu wants to set. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
yes but firefox is dependent on Google service wich is non-free trade secret software i suggest to remove firefox from the main repo and replace it by abrowser by default or the debian unbranded release of FF. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
FireFox is non-free in it default configuration. Any attemp by the software to contact a server that I do not request, is in my mind thief- of-services. I can not stop FireFox from doing this before load ubuntu or calling firefox. I must access first then after my IP has been recorded and counted, I am allowed to not use it. This software is not behaving correctly. Nor does it appear I have choice to use another provider without distoring the use of trademark. This is lock-in and should be immediately be pushed into multiverse, and get a real free software version in place. -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
firefox code is free but its services require that you accept the eula this is the only main package which do that and i think this is intolerable why we accept such unique behavior ? -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
@ Chip Bennet: My contention is that Firefox *may* become non-free because it has services enabled that require the end user either accept their use terms, or else disable those services. This is certainly much more interesting and important. (Unfortunately I can't help you start this discussion, I don't have much to say about it (yet).) However I don't agree with you that non-free service and freedom are suitable terms for services. I think free causes confusion rather than clarity. It sounds like you mean free as in the GPL, to which the necessary reply must be the GPL doesn't apply. We do need a term, but free is too confusing. Enabling those services is - at most - as simple as checking a configuration check box. People tend to interpret the defaults as a very strong recommendation. When people are uncertain about the consequences of touching a setting, many will see the default as a recommendation that you should disobey only if you have a really compelling reason, and only if you have thought through all the consequences with great care. As a consequence, the people who need this service will generally be afraid to touch the setting, and will only very rarely turn it on. Meanwhile those who don't need the service can turn it off very easily, for them it's quite trivial. @ jackb_guppy: FireFox is non-free in it default configuration. Any attemp by the software to contact a server that I do not request, is in my mind thief- of-services. I can not stop FireFox from doing this before load ubuntu or calling firefox. I must access first then after my IP has been recorded and counted, I am allowed to not use it. I get the impression that Ubuntu isn't the right distro for you. Ubuntu aims to be convenient and easily accessible. You're looking for maximum stealth. For example, very soon after installation Ubuntu will look for updates at some server near you, without asking you, and you can't choose which server. I find this convenient and acceptable. Apparently you don't. In my opinion the Firefox anti-phishing service is quite comparable to this. Nor does it appear I have choice to use another provider without distoring the use of trademark. The GPL does allow trademark restrictions. You'd need to find software that is published under a license that forbids trademark restrictions. I don't think you can find that, because I don't think such a license could be made practically useful and viable. Certainly Ubuntu is not the solution: http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy However it does seem that Mozilla uses trademark policies that are far more restrictive than necessary and clash badly with established FOSS practices. See http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/firefox-eula-in- linux-distributions/#comment-46 (but that discussion is about the previous Firefox EULA, it's not about the latest solution). -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
On Friday 19 September 2008 8:39:41 pm kafpauzo wrote: @ Chip Bennet: However I don't agree with you that non-free service and freedom are suitable terms for services. I think free causes confusion rather than clarity. It sounds like you mean free as in the GPL, to which the necessary reply must be the GPL doesn't apply. We do need a term, but free is too confusing. Perhaps it is too early to get caught up in terminology. I think that's part of the problem: the environment is so new that we don't even know the proper terminology. That said, I think there's a big difference between if you don't agree to the use terms, just don't use (passive end-user action) and if you don't agree to the use terms, disable (active end-user action) - especially considering that, in this example (Firefox anti-phishing services), most end-users will not know that their assent is required to use the services. (To that end, I understand why Mozilla wanted to expose the end user to the use terms.) The real problem arises when something that squarely falls into our understanding of free software (Firefox web browser) gets tangled up with something that still does not (anti-phishing services). Free software by definition imposes no use restrictions on end users. Firefox sans anti-phishing services imposes no use restrictions on end users. Firefox *with* anti-phishing services *does* impose use restrictions on end users. Therein lies the problem. And whether the services are called free/non-free, or something else entirely, the end result is that Firefox itself is in a state that really can't be considered to be fully consistent with the definition of free software (at least, as far as I can thus reason). Enabling those services is - at most - as simple as checking a configuration check box. People tend to interpret the defaults as a very strong recommendation. I'm not sure I agree with that assertion. *Many* defaults are matters of personal preference. Perhaps it is true to say that most people do not change configuration defaults for a given application, whether due to ignorance or apathy; however, I'm not sure that most people would see those configuration defaults as strongly recommended, best practice, etc. When people are uncertain about the consequences of touching a setting, many will see the default as a recommendation that you should disobey only if you have a really compelling reason, and only if you have thought through all the consequences with great care. That is exactly why Ubuntu could pop up a notice of its own (similar to the notice that comes up when installing/enabling MP3 codecs) on a user's first run of Firefox, explaining that the anti-phishing services are disabled by default, why they are disabled, the benefits the services provide to the user, and how to enable them (perhaps even offering to do so with a simple button-click). As a consequence, the people who need this service will generally be afraid to touch the setting, and will only very rarely turn it on. Meanwhile those who don't need the service can turn it off very easily, for them it's quite trivial. This stance appears to be the one shared by our SABDFL. I cannot disagree - unless some means exists to educate those users (as in the above example). Regardless, the bottom line really is this: with the anti-phishing services enabled, and therefore the restrictions with which those services encumber the end user, can Firefox still be considered to meet the definition of free software? If that answer is yes, then there is no issue. If, however, the answer is no, then *regardless* of how beneficial those services are to end users, Firefox cannot and should not be allowed to stay in the Main repository. If the answer is no, then the disposition of Firefox really becomes one of principle: will Canonical be willing either to violate or to modify its requirements for software in the Main repository for the sake of Firefox (and its anti-phishing services)? If the answer is no, then for many in the Ubuntu community, the disposition of Firefox will be indicative of Canonical's willingness to demonstrate the courage of their convictions with respect to free software. (And if anyone should think that statement to be sensational, I would refer you to the degree of emotion inherent in many of the preceding comments.) -- AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
